Using native plants
to increase scientific
and environmental
literacy of elementary
students
By Kean Roberts and Jerrid Kruse
I
n our experience, many students feel removed from their local
environment and the impact of environmental problems. To
combat environmental apathy, we seek to help students develop environmental knowledge, ethics, and “critical-thinking
skills that will prepare them to evaluate issues and make informed decisions regarding stewardship of the planet” (NSTA
2003, p. 1). To achieve these goals, students must develop a
more robust connection to nature around them (Roberts and
Kruse 2019; Chawla 2015; Louv 2008). Indeed, time spent in
nature provides numerous mental and physical benefits for chil-
48
•
•
dren, such as a stronger sense of place, emotional regulation,
improved scientific learning, improvements in motor fitness,
excitement in learning, and many more (Gill 2014).
This article describes scientific, place-based investigations
of local species and their ability to survive well, moderately
well, or not at all (3-LS4-3) (NGSS Lead States 2013) while
promoting components of environmental literacy (Table 1).
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2022
To encourage students’ recognition of nature’s proximity
and expand their environmental dispositions, we ask explicit,
open-ended questions regarding the concept of wilderness/
nature, possible uses of nature, and the extent to which humans should sustainably conserve nature (Roberts and Kruse
2019). Such questions aligned to each activity below are included in Table 2. Although these lessons were given to third
grade students, the activities provided are easily adaptable for
all elementary, middle, and even high school students.
Day 1: Introducing “Wild”
We began day 1 with a 10-minute discussion challenging
students on the perceived dichotomy between humanity and
wilderness. To guide this discussion, we drew a single, horizontal line on the board with the term wild labeled at the right
endpoint and asked students, “What comes to mind when
you hear the word wild?” As students answered, we nonverbally acknowledged their ideas, and once all ideas had been
recorded, we explored possible antonyms with students of the
term wild before settling on controlled, which we wrote at the
left endpoint. We explained the concept of a continuum before
suggesting a concrete example (e.g., dog, cat) of our own. Afterwards, we asked “What other things could we put on this
line?” Because students know their ideas are valuable, student
hands began to fly into the air to offer ideas, past natural experiences, and descriptions of their favorite hideaways. In our
experience, students tend to label plants (e.g., grass, flowers,
trees) as not wild, common organisms (e.g., birds, squirrels,
rabbits) as moderately wild, and exotic organisms (e.g., tigers,
eagles, monkeys) as wild but omit humans altogether.
TA BL E 1
Environmental literacy components.
Environmental
Literacy
Component
Explanation of Component
Inclusion of Component in Lessons
Knowledge
Knowledge includes (1) Physical
and ecological systems, (2) Social,
cultural, and political systems, (3)
Environmental issues, (4) Multiple
solutions to environmental issues,
and (5) Citizen participation and
action strategies.
Throughout the lessons, students learn about
their local ecosystems, native species, and
local history while investigating ecosystem and
habitat loss due to invasive species and how
native restoration can positively affect their
local environment. Lastly, students learn how to
sow seeds for native garden restoration.
Dispositions
Students’ sensitivity, attitudes, extent
of personal responsibility, locus of
control, and motivations towards the
environment.
In Day 1 and 2, we develop students’ sensitivity and
attitudes towards the environment by identifying
nature and wild things within their community.
Competencies
Competencies are clusters of
skills and abilities that share many
similarities with scientific skills
and abilities (e.g., identifying
environmental issues, asking relevant
questions, etc.)
Throughout these activities, we promote
scientific and environmental skills by asking
questions, encouraging students to elaborate
on their thinking, help students collaborate, and
use data to make conclusions.
Context
Contexts influence the way an
individual thinks about, addresses,
and resolves environmental issues.
The school and local community provides
context for the investigation and students
to act as citizen scientists, promoting their
personal and social contexts.
Environmentally
responsible
behaviors
“[E]xpression of knowledge,
dispositions, and competencies
within a context” (p. 3–12).
Eco-management is the main focus of this
investigation as it ends with sowing seeds of
native plants within the classroom.
Day 3 and 4 promotes students’ locus of control
by learning of possible native plants and how to
properly grow those plants in jiffy strips.
www.nsta.org/science-and-children
•
49
After these examples have been placed on the continuum,
we suggested, “What about a house?” Students often agree
a house is controlled, to which we responded with “What
about an old house that’s breaking down?” This time, students agreed this is more wild than the previous example,
and after discussing the difference in wilderness between
the two, we contrasted “wild” habitats (e.g., jungles, savannahs, etc.) with well-known locations in our community
(e.g., parks, stormwater reservoirs, etc.). Students arrived at
the idea that human interaction tends to make nature either
less wild through confinement and suppression (e.g., houses,
sport fields, neighborhoods) or more wild through protection
TABL E 2
Example questions to promote environmental ethic in students.
Environmental
Disposition
Component
Explanation of Component
Inclusion of Component in Lessons
Recognizing
Nature
Students identify nature as
a local, rather than foreign,
phenomenon.
In Day 1, we engage the students by asking “What comes
to mind when you hear the word wild?” After reading
Finding Wild, we extend with “What ‘wild’ things do you
think we would find on the school’s grounds?”
In Day 2, we ask the students why they chose to go
to certain locations and whether these locations are
considered nature.
Justifying
Nature
Students discern the value
of nature by critiquing
various uses of nature.
In Day 1, we ask students where they like to play. When
students respond with natural places, we have them state
why they prefer that location of others. We broaden our
conversation from student play to other uses of nature,
such as scientists role with nature, Indigenous peoples
role with nature, businesses role with nature, etc.
Examining
nature’s impact
on humans
Students examine how
nature impacts human
society (i.e., large cities
are founded near large
rivers because of trade
opportunities, etc.).
In Day 3, to help students not only think about how
nature impacts humans currently, we ask students
“Indigenous populations lived near the prairies and would
help them grow; how do you think the prairies helped
Indigenous populations survive?”
Examining
human’s impact
on nature
Students examine how
human’s impact nature (i.e.,
deforestation, urban sprawl,
etc.).
In Day 3, we ask this question in tandem with the
Examining nature’s impact on humans section;
“Indigenous, or native, plants and animals seemed to
support each other well, but outside organisms didn’t.
How do you think white people coming to this area
affected the people, the plants, and the animals?”
Responsible
preservation
and
conservation
Students debate and
evaluate humanity’s
role in preservation and
conservation of nature.
In Day 3, we begin to challenge the students to think
of themselves as a part of this ecosystem and their role
within it. We discuss the following question with small
groups as they work on their species cards; “In what
sense are humans a part of this environment?” “If we had
a card for humans, how many points do you think they
would have?” “In what sense do you think humans should
act like a one-point card and only take care of themselves
or act like a three-point card and take care of the other
species around them? Why?”
Note: Adapted from Roberts and Kruse 2019
50
•
•
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2022
INVADING WILD
and promotion (e.g., zoos, natural conservatories, state/national parks). Lastly we asked, “In what sense are humans
wild or a part of nature?”
Following the discussion of human wildness, we shifted
gears by asking “What wild things would we find near our
school?” Once again, students were so energetic about sharing their personal findings and neighborhood treasures that
we ended up overextending our time for this lesson. Once
students have shared, we read Finding Wild by Megan Wagner Lloyd (2016). Throughout the reading, we paused and
scaffolded students’ connection to our previous discussion
of our local environment. For example, we asked, “How are
the author’s thoughts about wild similar to your thoughts
about wild?” “What do you think she means when she says,
‘the wild is buried too deep?’” and, “Why do you think the
author wrote this book?” After the reading, we encouraged
students to seek out wild things after school with their families and instructed them to bring long pants and closed-toed
shoes for tomorrow’s activities.
Day 2: Observing Wild
As soon as students were allowed into our building, they
were pushing down our door to boast about the wild-ness of
their findings—so much so that a competition began around
who had made the wildest observations. After the bell had
rung and students were settled for the day, we allowed the
students a more structured time to share while adding their
ideas to yesterday’s continuum.
To reinforce scientific expectations, we played a quick
game about observations. Between each set of partners,
we placed three pencils, all with distinct defects (e.g., broken lead, scratch marks, and missing eraser). Students had
one minute to describe, through writing and drawing, one
of the three pencils. After the minute was over, students
shared their observations with their partner and their partner
guessed which pencil they drew. We ask, “Why are specific
details helpful when making observations?” Answers were
written on the board and doubled as expectations for scientific observations.
Before going outside, students were tasked with finding
and observing one plant and animal. We connected our expectations to this task by asking, “How could we apply the
same observation process to organisms we find outside?”
Connections to mathematics could be added here if students
are expected to measure as part of their observations.
Once outside, we identified investigation boundaries,
restricted blind spots, reminded students to remain within
eyesight of the teacher and to not disturb the organisms in
their habitats. It’s a good idea to be aware of any hazards on
your campus, such as fire ants or poison ivy. As soon as we
released the students, they turned on their heels and sprinted
to make their observations. As students began their observations, we meandered between groups asking them why
they selected their current location, assisted with observations, and discussed organisms’ positions on the wilderness
continuum. When we noticed some students drew idealized
organisms rather than observed organisms, we asked, “Why
do you think scientists would rather study actual trees rather
than the tree that they imagine?”
After five minutes, we pulled students back together and
asked, “What might organisms look like if they survive well
in this environment? Not well? Somewhere in the middle?”
Students tended to say, “It’s growing! If it’s brown and
dead-looking, it’s probably not surviving well.” Other students stated “I found a bunch of ladybugs, so I’d say that
those are pretty successful! Maybe if something is hard to
find, it’s less successful?” At this time, we introduced their
next task; “You need to find three plants that are smaller
F I G URE 1
Species cards.
www.nsta.org/science-and-children
•
51
than you. Of these three plants, you need one you think is
surviving well, one that is not surviving well, and one that
is somewhere in the middle.”
As they worked, we visited each student and discussed
their drawings. These conversations proved helpful as a formative assessment. For example, one student explained that
they were drawing a plant for “not well” because the leaves
were drooping and falling off. After 10–15 minutes, we instructed the students to return inside and to wash their hands
while we collected their drawings.
Day 3: Analyzing “Wild”
We began day 3 by handing back student drawings and reviewing the organisms students thought survived well, not
well, and moderately well. Next, we explained that today we
would learn about the species we saw outside yesterday and
other species native to the Midwest.
Although yesterday some species were thought to be
surviving well (e.g., Kentucky bluegrass), today students
will evaluate the ecosystem’s survivability with the help of
species cards (Figure 1; see Online Resources). Each species card has unique descriptions, whether native to Midwest, and a point value (e.g., one, two, three) that relates
to its impact on other species. The higher the point value,
the more synergetic the species. For example, the honeybee
is a three-point card because it is a major pollinator, while
Kentucky bluegrass is a one-point card because it does not
support organisms in this ecosystem.
We placed one set of species cards between each set of
partners and asked, “What do you notice about these cards?”
Students eagerly shuffled through and found organisms that
they located during yesterday’s activity and identified the
card’s components but were confused about the word native.
Recognizing that native may be a new term for students, we
asked, “What does it mean to be native to somewhere?” After
we wrote ideas on the board with native at the center, we asked,
“What word describes something that’s not native to an area?”
We wrote the terms on the board and then stated, “Non-native
is a word scientists use for something not native to an area.”
After deconstructing the card’s vocabulary, we followed the
student’s curiosity regarding different point values. We told
students to locate the yarrow and garlic mustard cards while
we drew a Venn diagram of the two organisms on the board.
We began this conversation by asking “What similarities can
you find between these two cards?” After writing similarities
in the overlapping portion of the Venn diagram, students noted there are more differences, which we follow with, “What
differences are there between the two cards?” Students replied
that one has flowers, one is native to the Midwest, and yarrow
helps other species while garlic mustard does not.
After students have sifted through the differences, we
connected back to the point-values of each card by asking
“Why do you think garlic mustard is only worth one point,
52
•
•
while the yarrow is worth three points?” Students tended to
respond with “the yarrow attracts pollinators and helps other
plants grow and the garlic mustard doesn’t attract any” and
“the yarrow is native to the Midwest while the garlic mustard
is not.” As we wrote these ideas on the board, we had students see if these characteristics are true for the other cards.
As students vetted the remaining cards with these predictions, we worked with struggling students.
Returning to the large group, we asked, “After looking at
the rest of the deck, what makes a card worth one point? Three
points?” Students determined three-point cards are native organisms that support other species while one-point cards are
non-native organisms that hurt or are indifferent toward other
species. Once students have made this realization, we wrote
the term invasive on the board and helped students break
down the word’s meaning. Students often saw the “Inva-” and
thought “invading” or “invasion.” We furthered this connection by asking “What happens during an invasion? What does
it mean to invade something?” After these questions, students
recognized that invasive species might “take over” an area. We
also explain that not all non-native species are bad and some
live perfectly fine in an environment.
To deepen student understanding regarding the benefits
of native organisms we questioned, “You said that the cards
with higher points help more organisms and are native to the
Midwest. Why do you think that organisms that are native to
the same area tend to help each other more than ones that are
not native to that area?”
After a brief discussion, we instructed shoulder partners
to select seven cards they would include in a garden. While
FIG U RE 2
Student work.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2022
INVADING WILD
students were working, we helped struggling students and
encouraged deeper thinking. We noticed that some students
choose three-point cards based solely on their point value
rather than their ecosystem effects. To mitigate this issue, we
asked each group about their reasoning for including threepoint species. More specifically “Why do you think it is better to include [selected three-point card] more than [selected
one-point card] in your garden? How might each species
help or hurt the garden?” Not only did this encourage students to think about relationships within the ecosystem, but
it scaffolded the upcoming assessment.
For the summative assessment, we handed out sentence
starters (see Supplemental Resources) for students to construct an argument using the species cards and their outdoor
observations as evidence. In this argument, students selected
and identified two species they would and would not include
in a garden, respectively. While students worked, we differentiated for students with special needs by allowing them to
verbally state their argument to demonstrate their proficiency in 3-LS4-3. This assessment challenged students to think
about the cause and effect of the different organisms in their
environment.
Students exceeding the standard accurately explained
their selected organisms’ survivability and how both species
affect other species’ survivability. Proficient students accurately explained either their selected species’ survivability
or how the selected species affects other species. Developing students accurately explained their selected organisms’
survivability but inaccurately explained how either species
affects other species, and beginning students were unable to
explain how their selected species will survive and how both
species affect other species.
For example, answers similar to Figure 2 would be
marked as proficient because the student explained why their
included organism would survive and provided a reasoning
for why they would not include their last species but did not
effectively state how little bluestem would affect other species in the environment.
Day 4 and Beyond: Building Wild
Following our past three activities, students expressed interest in adding more native flora to the school grounds. To do
this, we procured plant seeds and biodegradable jiffy strips
from our local nursery for a small fee (approximately $25).
The jiffy strips we selected are square peat strips that can be
transplanted directly into the ground and are easy to transport outdoors when ready. When students got their hands in
the dirt and began planting the seeds, we heard comments
similar to “I can’t wait to see how big mine will grow!” and “I
want to take mine home after and plant it around my house
so that I can have a bunch of butterflies!” As the plants grew,
we used students’ observations of the plants to have conversations around plant needs, growth, and development. As
students cared for their seedlings, we noticed they even further develop their empathy for plants, a critical component
of environmental stewardship.
Although we could not alter our school grounds, we visited a local native garden to transplant the students’ seedlings.
This visit offered a plethora of future scientific investigations
and experiences for all students that lie beyond the scope of
this article. As one example, during our first visit, students
compared their seedlings to plants found in the wild and
considered how the local environment may have shaped the
plants’ growth.
Additionally, we furthered student learning through an
interdisciplinary discussion during a social studies lesson.
We encouraged students to consider how human migration
and colonialism have impacted environments by asking,
“About 500 years ago, people from Europe came to this part
www.nsta.org/science-and-children
•
53
UNDERSTANDING BY DESIGN
of the world. Some historians say that these European settlers acted like invasive species; why do you think historians
say these settlers acted like invasive species?” Thinking back
to the species cards, students tended to say things like “Maybe there wasn’t enough food for everyone,” “they stole land
from the people who were already here,” “they brought new
kinds of animals and plants,” and “they probably brought
illnesses too.” To solidify the idea of human manipulation
of the environment we asked, “How do you think the land
around our school would look different if European settlers
never arrived?” Student responses varied on this question
but often centered on a return to untouched wilderness. Although this line of thinking is understandable, it often leads
to the misconception that indigenous peoples did not manage the land at all. To address this misconception, we use this
discussion as a turning point in our unit towards indigenous
land management methods and how that shaped the local
landscape.
Conclusion
While science content is a large component of scientific literacy, a more robust sense of care, place, and environmentally
responsible skills further reinforces students’ understanding of natural phenomena. Through these hands-on experiences, students joyfully uncover their local environment and
identify potential threats to ecological sustainability while
developing a more robust sense of care, place, and devotion
towards future environmental stewardship.
REFERENCES
Roberts, K., and J. Kruse. 2019. Repairing the relationship
between students and nature. The Clearing House: A
Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 92(1–2):
23–27.
Chawla, L. 2015. Benefits of nature contact for children.
Journal of Planning Literature 30 (4): 433–452.
Gill, T. 2014. The benefits of children’s engagement with
nature: A systematic literature review. Children Youth and
Environments 24 (2): 10–34.
Hollweg, K.S., at al. 2011. Developing a framework for
assessing environmental literacy. Washington, DC: North
American Association for Environmental Education. http://
www.naaee.net
Lloyd, M.W., and A. Halpin. 2016. Finding wild (First edition.).
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Louv, R. 2008. Last child in the woods: Saving our children
from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin
books of Chapel Hill, 2006. Print.
NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next generation science standards:
For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
National Science Teaching Association (NSTA). 2003.
Environmental Education Position Statement. https://www.
nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/environmental-education
ONLINE RESOURCES
Download species cards at https://bit.ly/3P9K5wh
Kean Roberts (keanrscience@gmail.com) is a doctoral candidate, and Jerrid Kruse is the Baker Professor of Education,
both at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
54
•
•
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2022